In March I wrote a series of posts discussing the Ethics of Blogging. Craig Crawford had set down ten rules for commenting on his web site and I knew that they were applicable in one manner or another to all people who participate on the Web.  This post concerns the seventh canon or rule. I got this far so with only four rules left I have kind of committed myself to finishing what I started.  I decided to update the material because I wanted to make my position vis a vis the rule more cogent than my original post.

The rules of the netwebblogosphere are important to us all. What we are looking for is clarity. The purpose of course, is to communicate with another human being (most of the time) in a manner that will make it possible for him or her to ingest the material and throw it all back at you or throw up all over you. These metaphors are getting more and more complicated, do you not think?      

There is the message and there is the object of that message. To whom am I communicating this message?

Now Miguel once noted in a comment to his own blog:

Miguel: Might as well do some laundry, or chop some wood, SI, 'cause ain't nuthin happenin' here. Who knows though. If this post stays up as the 'most recommended' for another week or so I might set a new personal record for # of recommends.

To that comment Quinn Esq replied:

Q: Dude, I'm caught up on EVERYTHING. Even got Christmas Dinner ready to go. Though, in the interests of double-confirming, you ARE attending, right? Like you said? And do you go well with honey glaze? Errrr.... "like." Do you "like" honey glaze?

Well I was personally distraught over this reply. I mean Quinn has never invited me over for xmas dinner. And I assumed the reply was made directly to Miguel. Miguel was referred to as DUDE. Now it is my practice to name the person in my reply to their comment, whether the comment is in my blog or someone elses. So I ASSUMED the Q was speaking to Miguel.

Now it appears that Miguel demurs as far as the invitation:

Miguel: Ermmm... You know my dad just called and he really, really, really wants me to come home for Christmas this year, so, although I'll miss hanging out with you and the rest of your family and all those tubes dangling into the cranberry sauce, I think you'll have to do without me this year.

But now I am confused over the message. I mean what exactly are the nuances contained in the original reply by Quinn to Miguel's comment?

Well Miguel's reaction gives me some CLUE as to what he perceived as this message. I mean context is everything as they say, or the existentialists seem to contend, anyway. Well I think the actual message is that Miguel is related to Miguel's concern--to me anyway--that Quinn will fix Miguel as his xmas dinner. Am I alone in this conclusion? Well let us take one more look at this exchange:

Quinn:  Got a little brother or sister who might wanna travel a bit? You know.... roughly suckling size?

Now you can see that I did not invent anything with regard to this exchange:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/miguelitoh2o/2009/12/taliban-al-qaeda-lets-call-the.php#comment-3692278

I have concluded that Quinn has somehow gotten the idea, through Miguel's avatar that our friend is of the porcine persuasion.

At least, as I read through the dialogue, it becomes clear to me that the two at least understand what they are talking about.

So, even though I have decided to at least attempt to include the name of the person I am communicating with in my reply to a comment, sometimes context is everything.

But we must be clear enough in our message to the object of our comments or replies so that there is no mistake as to what we mean or the reason as to WHY WE REPLIED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

We must always question from whence the comment or reply arises. But I am pretty sure that since Quinn is a Canadian and a Cannibal, that it was actually written by him. I mean Q's replies to Miguel. Although Quinn may actually be under the

I guess I care less about what a third person might surmise from a tete-a-tete than that the two writers know what is transpiring in the dialogue.

But let us take a look at this rule from a broader perspective.

In the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of Australian perspective, a certain Sarah Palin recently wrote a piece concerning Global Warming.  This Palin character decided that the 'science' of global warming is not kosher:

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

First, the message seems to be that there are radical environmentalists who have as their only aim, to destroy the global economy. That is, there is a group of people who do not give one goddamn about humanity. They just wish to destroy all of us. This aim could not be monetary in nature, since the group would make no money at all by destroying the planet.

Second, the Palin I know, could never have written this piece since she has no idea what an environment is. And she could not possibly understand the results of any studies that have been undertaken by scientists. Because Palin really does not have any idea what exactly, scientists do all day.

Third, we already know that Palin really does not like to read anything except for the weekly reader and Reader's Digest. So she could not have possibly read any of the studies by these 'scientists'.

Fourth, Palin could not possibly comprehend anything as complicated as an economy, let alone the economy of Alaska where there are the fewest citizens and the most natural resources in the world.

So we know that Palin did not write this op-ed piece. Maybe the NAZI who wrote her 'biography' did but that is of little consequence here.

And TO WHOM is the piece written?  I mean who is her audience?

Well, I do not think that Palin's intended audience included scientists. How do I arrive at this conclusion? Well because whoever wrote it has no idea what science is, exactly.  Take a look at this portion of the editorial:

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

Most scientists took geography at some point in their education. I mean places like MIT require some idea as to how the globe is 'laid out' so to speak and Australia is not part of the EU. Austria is of course. I mean maybe the editor misunderstood what the real message here was supposed to convey. But Austria has not lodged any complaint as to the Copenhagen proposals.

Besides, Palin is a Fundamentalist Christian and my question to her would be:

How old's the planet Palin?

Six thousand years and counting

How old's the planet Sarah?

Six mellenia says the bible

Well, Alaska's losin its glacial past

The polar cap will be gone at last

Armageddon is comin in fast

So who's worried bout Global Warmin

 

How old's the planet Palin?

A few thousand years and countin'

How old's the planet Sarah?

About as old as it's gonna get

Well the sea is risin' faster than the price of gold

Half of our ports will be under I'm told

Jesus' comin asoon, a belief I hold

So the end is nigh if I may be so bold

How would be miss bein' lost with nothing to behold

Six thousand years and countin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyZD7eoHZT8

So there you have it. If the world is only six thousand years old and Armageddon is coming soon, who gives a shite about global warming anyway?. People like Palin could not possibly give one goddamn about future generations, or ice floes, or Polar Bears or anything else.

The point of life is to give all allegiance to the capitalist international corporate oligarchy and make as much money as fast as possible. I mean you have to act fastly because the world is coming to an end. And SOON.

 In conclusion who is sending the message? What is the message. And to whom is the message addressed?

Once you have these questions answered, you are better able to survive the Netwebblogoshphere.